Skip to main content

About your Search

English 54
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 54 (some duplicates have been removed)
a little bit and to talk just for a moment about the u.s. competitiveness and the u.s. economy in a global context. and their actually was an oecd report that came out this morning that does that admirably. this report predicts that within four years, by 2016, the chinese economy will be bigger than the economy. and what the oecd report sort of further says, it's a great report. if you're interested, take a look online. today the u.s. economy accounts for 23% of the world's economy and india is 7. in 2030, according to the oecd predictions, china will be 29% of the world economy, the u.s. will be 18 and india will be 11. and those are, i think, really worthwhile numbers to keep in our mind as we talk about u.s. competitiveness in the world economy, because we're entering this entirely new era where the u.s. is going to be a big player in the world economy but no longer the preeminent, the very largest one, and i think that brings real challenges and requires a whole new way of thinking. so my opening remarks, steve was introduced, i think quite rightly, as a guy who i hope is getting cases
. >> host: so a couple powerful phrases in the book were read economy. you can attach a that number if you could explain a little more clearly. in a competitive market, government was set to rule and instruments to with liberalism adjustables as physicists figure out how to have a level playing field as possible. you have to keep trying to make sure the playing field is level how to allocate capital and to succeed. it's also natural tendency to hate towards monopoly or duopoly, or a couple successful firms keep getting bigger and bigger and removing competition. when that happens, once your monopoly or duopoly, you don't want to invest in innovation. you don't want to take risk. you just want to mind the market for right-thinking in which means earning profit in an economy. all of these rules and regulations in every shop tour i'm sure you've read things you have not read in the news media. i show again and again the market is being. this is terrible and explains why we are in economic doldrums and my redundant job creation. >> host: let's go through some of these examples. we'll get back
, you refer -- a couple of powerful phrase, you refer to ours being a rigged economy. if you could explain more clearly. >> guest: well, in a competitive market, government would set the rules and as the germans do, with what they call -- adjust the rules as businesses figure out how to game the rules to have as level a playing field. because the market will figure out best how to outfit capital and who should succeed. but it's also a natural tendency in a capitalist market to good toward monopoly where a couple of successful firms get bigger and bigger and remove competition. and when that happened you get constitute typhic indication. you don't want to take risks. you just want to mind the market, do what economists call rent-seeking, which means earning profits greater than a market economy. when you add to that these rules and regulations -- in the book, every chapter, -- i'm sure you a reading thises you have not read in the news media. i show how again and again and again the market is being rigged. this is terrible for the national economy and explains why we're in these eco
with a number of leading economist and political scholars on the economy, national security and so-called fiscal cliff. economists for peace and security and the new america foundation's economic growth program are hosting this panel discussion. this is expected to last to go to early this afternoon. this is live coverage on c-spa c-span2. >> questions of military security, national security, economic security, social security, with the broad questions that we have all been grappling with four, intensely for the last four or five years. we are, strictly speaking, a professional organization. we are not an advocacy or lobbying group. we gather together, professionals working on these questions represent only themselves, and who had the advantage i believe of being able to speak to you with clarity and conviction. eps is also a membership organization. our website is www.eps and i would invite all of you who are here and all who may be watching to visit the website. and if you share the goals and objectives of the organization to join us, or to lend us your support. we have a great adv
the consequences. what this discussion really is going to end of being, what our society and economy really need and some of that our programs like the entitlement programs but also things like dealing with bridges and roads and infrastructure and other things the federal government does. that is what we are moving the discussion to and we have a great panel, i think. . .. michael has been an editor or staff writer for "the new yorker," harper's magazine and "the new republic." he's published and appeared and spoken pretty much everywhere, and written everything. ease in terms of writing, everything from much a claimed serious and important works of history, to a prize-winning children's book. moniqumonique morrissey, who yon probably figure out which person that is, has been with the economic policy institute since 2006 where we were colleagues for a, i don't know, a year or something. she previously worked at the afl-cio's office of investment in the financial markets center, she holds a ph.d in economics from american university, and her areas of concentration in her ample research inviting i
of the fundamental question of the internet economy. >> right, it certainly is and again, no one, even in the children, even in the copa context where we proposed before you collect information online from children you have to get parental consent, we don't think, i mean that doesn't stop advertisements for children. it only stops particularly types of information and advertising it back and monetizing that information and soling it to third parties and using it to advertise to children. all it doesn't say you can't collect certain types of information. that is our proposal. we are taking comments. we haven't made up our mind precisely where we're going to go. >> let's sort of talk broadly about a concept of unfairness. so the ftc has a mandate of enforcing deceptive and unfair practices right? >> right. >> traditionally you erred on the side of deceptive. >> well, you know, if you make a commitment to anyone in this room we will in the privacy content we will protect your data and you don't honor that commitment that is deceptive practice. that is an easy thing to understand conceptua
even adjusting for the state of the economy those receiving food stamps it is that an all-time high. to another that we'll companies are not monopoly's controlled by a few but an important source of wealth and income for millions of average americans. whether clear markets coming tax notes or testified before congress she it is a powerful and detective voice. as you will agree after her talk. diana furchtgott-roth holds degrees from oxford university and were spurred college. she also served on the staff of the domestic policy council under george hw bush and his staff economist for the council of economic appraisers during the reagan administration. she it is also chief economist for of the department of labor and the author of women's figures the guide to economic progress. please join me to welcome senior fellow diana furchtgott-roth. [applause] >> thank you very much for that kind introduction. i am grateful you could be doing so many other things today but here you are listening to me talk about green jobs and there fallacy. i'd like to thank the manhattan institute for organiz
. >> host: so the powerful faces in the book to me or their rickety economy but if you could explain a little more clearly. >> guest: in a competitive market the government would set the rules and as the germans do with what they call the liberalism adjust the rules as the businesses play the rules you are not going to have protection but you have to make sure the playing field because the market will figure out best who should succeed in the capitalist market to head towards monopoly or duopoly that getting bigger and bigger and bigger and when that happens when you get is the ones you are a monopoly or duopoly come you don't want to invest in innovation you just want to mind the market and to rent seeking by which they mean earning profits greater than you would get in the market economy. when you add to that all of these rules and regulations in the book and every chapter as i am sure you've read things you haven't read in the news media show how again and again and again the market is being rigged but this is terrible and helps explain why in the economic doldrums we don't have t
that will make a difference in the future economy of this country. we are in a mess. he is in a position like a lot of previous presidents. he's got to be thinking, am i going to leave a disastrous legacy in the hands of our grandchildren? or am i going to step up and lead? i used to get criticized because i was a deal maker. i talked to people like joe lieberman, we would find a way to get things done. you have to give a little to get a little. doesn't wind up getting you in trouble? oh, yes. but after all, that is what this is all about. the president has said himself, and i quoted him in an article that may run in the "washington post" tomorrow, he says america deserves better. it begins with him. mcconnell has to be engaged. harry reid has to be engaged. we are at a profit this year. maybe it is the fiscal cliff. but we have to act on a lot of really serious things and we had some of it now. we have to do a lot of it next year. if they do the right thing, that our country will benefit the legacy will be secure. so i want to open this up. a lot of people in this room are engaged in this ef
implications for orientation, not just generally, how it affects the economy, but also in the middle east, something that has to be thought about. there's also the question of the future of the european union which will have an impact, again, not only on the economy, but could also have an impact in terms of what happens in the middle east. we could reserve some of the questions for the q&a, but what i'd like to focus on are a few of the key issues i think are most immediate and prominent. starting with iran. i think 2013 will be a decisive year. for people with long memories, say say, well, gee, people talk about iran for a long time, and every year it's supposed to be the decisive year. why do i say this year? two reasons. one, i think, actually, the impact of sanctions is profound. for the first time, it's truly profound in the case of iran. we have the supreme leader, two weeks ago, referring to the sanctions being brutal, his words. the sanctions are brutal. this is someone whose said on an ongoing basis, looked, we lived with sanctions since the beginning of the islamic republic, th
the economy stronger white a set of commitments to finance, a high level of public investments in infrastructure and education and a lot of bipartisan support for that. i think there's a lot of support for doing the obvious things you have to do. you have to pass an extension tax of the amt is very important to do. you listen carefully there's a lot of support for trying to make real progress on the long-term fiscal soundness. there's a lot of benefit in doing that for the economy. how you do that is important. so i think this is a solvable problem and we want to do as much as we can to take an advantage of this opportunity to make some progress in each of those fronts. >> there's one thing about which they're doesn't appear to be a lot of agreement and that is should the bush tax cuts on the overt and hundred 50,000 crowd be extended or should taxes be raised? >> i heard jay carney an hour or so ago say the president will not agree to anything that extends the tax cuts on the upper brackets. that sounds like a line in the sand; is it? >> i do think it's important to start by a
's why we have these two guys to start today. i me, one of great at winners of the american economy, steve case, who not only has such an impact with aol, but now with revolution is funding and helping to develop a whole range of companies with a variety of industries. meanwhile, but in the washington area has gotten incredibly involved in trying to help the u.s. government think more intelligently about competitiveness and entrepreneurship in particular. josh linkner, a local store here who runs detroit venture partners as an sure many of you know, it's are from detroit you certainly know that, a supporter of this event which were very grateful for, and i think it's symbolic of incredible new energy that is developing in detroit and i should also say that josh created a company called, in 1999 here in detroit, operating all this time. two weeks ago it sold for a nice exit. here's a story of a company, a local copy that came from here, when all the way and he's an real well with the. even vested in a ton of other companies. so i just want to start asking you, steve, you know, when i
it is a slope, it is going to hurt the economy. it's not going to happen overnight, we're not going to go into a major recession overnight, but, you know, the democrats clearly don't want to sacrifice unemployed workers and, you know, and the economy as a whole to, you know -- and so that's where they're vulnerable. and this is hypersimplified. i mean, i don't even -- you know, the tax increase is not just a bush tax cut, but it's a payroll tax cut, and unemployment is another big factor there, the extended unemployment. so the, you know, sort of a point -- okay. well, okay, i'm going to skip ahead, but just a couple of points to be made here. you know, economists are all glad that now -- or keynesians are glad that there's an implicit, you know, that the whole discussion around the fiscal cliff implies that you're a keynesian, that you really believe the economy's going to go south if you, if you close the deficit even though it's not usually stated in those words. you know, a couple of details are, you know, yes, generally speaking all else equal you reduce the deficit, you will have, y
the most if we allow the economy to go over the cliff. and i think if nothing is done the economy will go over a cliff. who gets blamed lex they blame the republicans now. the democrats won the election. the voters are not always rational. the way they hand out blame. there's a lot of speculation going on right now at leadership levels in both houses and both parties, with the white house briefing a huge sigh of relief that the polls were all right, but now we are stuck with this for four more years. how do we deal with this? i don't think anybody knows how the lame-duck is really going to work, other than, you know, will be a continuing resolution. will be a kick the can down the road kind of resolution. the question is how many things will be added to the train as it's moving through and what shape will it be, and that's great uncertainty. >> congressman gephardt, as senator bennet just like that, this could get pretty messy even if they come up with some solution that involves duct tape and kleenex but it could get ugly before it is resolved. and doesn't that affect the leverage here f
national defence, history, the u.s. economy. a television series based on winklevoss is currently in development as well. we are pleased to welcome juan williams to hear about his newest book, winklevoss which in this case will be from 1898 -- winklevoss -- a patriot's history of the modern world. >> thanks so much to heritage foundation for inviting me here. it is an honor and one i wish my daughter was alive to see. heritage is one of those bastions of liberty in a sea of collectivism. you probably didn't know you are getting somebody here that was the previous rock drummer. this later became significant as a learning experience when i began working on this film but all along my experiences in the rock band were pretty informative. i tell my students i know all about communism because i was in a rock band. we shared everything, has nothing and starving. when mike allen and i wrote a patriot's history of the united states in 2004 we identified three major elements that made up americanism. nevertheless we never provided a definition of american exceptionalism and tearing the revi
an islamist problem per se. the other issues the economy is very important. we tend to look at the question and focus on the question of cheri and women's rights which is an important aspect but also the economy is very important. a lot of economic issues and social economic problems that are concealed in economic terms but are fundamentally questions of women's rights and women's empowerment and talking about the problem of the informal sector and a considerable portion of the population that have no labor protection. the biggest people hurting the most from this reality are actually women. it is not exclusively a question of what cheri at --sharia has to offer. whether they have to say about the question of women's rights which is important aspect but not the only aspect. >> their security sector reform mentioned, we could get into that. let's do tunisia and libya and may have some broader observations on this issue because you have been working on egypt and libya as well. or did you have any -- >> in tunisia the issue of women's rights is a large issue. certainly tunisian have prided th
game and more than half of us fish. outdoor recreation economy across this country contributed some $646 million in direct spending to this u.s. economy. fishing and00ing is not just recreation, it is a critical part of our economy. in montana, hunting and fishing alone brings $1 billion a year to our economy. nearly as much as the state's cattle industry. it drives and sustained jobs, and with hunting season in full swing and thousands of montanaians hunting in the back country over the thanksgiving weekend, this bill is as timely as ever. mr. president, the sports men's act of 2012 is balanced, bipartisan, and widely supported. it is also fiscally responsible. the bill has no cost. mr. president, before the senate went out of session, we voted to move forward with this bill by a vote of 84-7. 84-7. it was a resounding approval to preserve some of our most productive habitat, to pass on the hunting tradition and to entrust them with the land and water we share. now it's time to get this bill across the finish line, to approve a bill with widespread support that preserves our outdoo
no , -- judicial nominations. >> i think obama neutralized romney on the economy this year. if it goes on longer, it's hard to know. in the exit polls, 53% of the voters blame george bush for current economic problems, and 38% barack obama. you see how he neutralized that. >> a comment on that. if you look at the most recent analysis of those just off the charts sue pert in straightforward analysis, you know, looking at this downturn, in the context of other downturns triggered by financial crisis and debt problems which is different from a typical recession, weaver come -- we've come out of that better than most others, and better than other countries who experienced it in a global way, and if you look at the forecast made by moody analytics and others, basically, it was regardless of who is the president, we'll see 12 million jobs created over the next four years. now, they may be right, and they may be wrong, and their prognostications on economic issues are nowhere belter than ours have been on political issues, and lots of things can emerge, including war, a -- other kinds of economic issue
of this tailspin the european economy seems to be in? >> first of all, let me express my gratitude for this invitation. i'm very pleased to be here. thank you very much. and good morning, all of you. in europe, several hours seems very important, pleased to resolve. but personally i consider there's a lot of competition between policies. given the history of the euro, single currency, if that's the case, was combination of flexibility one hand, and discipline on the other and. as you combined both, the results are good difficult is that you forget that discipline, you have a problem. you eliminate flexibility. and now the moment is how it's possible to recover growth. i think that growth is a consequence not exactly of the economic cycle. not exactly of automatic decision, is question of good resilience and good policy. and good policy is difficult. bad policies, differences, good and bad economics. must recover in europe at least three key questions. discipline, fiscal discipline to second, to create a financial union, and second, to start a serious agenda over agenda for the futu
are critical in order to get the economy growing again and people back to work. and i think that is the over -- it's certainly the number one domestic challenge. my point is it's always the number one national security challenge. why? because a healthy economy and a healthy balance sheet undergirds everything we do internationally. it funds our military, it gives strength to our diplomacy, it allows us to be an attractive trading partner which gives us economic influence. it undergirds everything we do overseas. but secondly, it also undergirds the power of the american idea. the american idea is political democracy and free markets makes for a stable situation in the long term but also makes for a prosperous society that is able to deliver on its people. that is really what america has stood for. and by our failure to resolve our own problems and get our economy growing and going again, we undermine the strength of the american idea internationally. and that's why countries are flirting with this notion of, well, maybe china has it right; state capitalism plus keeping your people in line. a
.s. that is the way the economy affects our lives and the way the economy gets into our very bodies. it is a book about my arrival in the winter of 1997 when i was broke. i was also broken. and i was on drugs. i was in mexico city where i had gone under a book contract from new york. i got an advance from a new york publisher to write a book. it was a dream come true. in mexico city, by november of 1997, i had crossed the deadline and i didn't have a word written. and i was broke. and i called the only friend i could count on at that time. my lifestyle ruined a lot of friendships. and i said, aria, help me, porfavor. there are a whole lot of circumstances. how did she wind up in the desert? welcome everybody has a story of how they got there. she said we will take care of you, we will give you a place to live. shortly thereafter, i arrived in the desert, and one of the first things that i saw when i rented my little shack out in the sand next to a sign that said the next service is 100 miles, the town east of joshua tree, i felt driven to go further out. she and her friends were right at the edge
and the corporate military contractor but even more than the actual reality of the defense spending in our economy, there is the perception of the role defense spending and defense and military play in our economy and the perception that cuts to work growth in pentagon spending is shorthand, not just for how you much you care about jobs but how much you care about troops and american security and we start with the public because as i said the public is clear across party lines, land wars, not interested in big new military adventures of any kind, feel confident technological solutions that address terrorism problems. at the same time the public is willing and interested to hear about and -- fraud related pentagon cuts but believes if you just go in and cut the pentagon you will hurt troops and heard their families and heard veterans and it has to be said the public is not entirely wrong in thinking this because the single biggest drivers, troops, benefits, retirement, health care. also interesting how in the public mind the entire military establishment and troops have become synonymous. they also
-market economy. these may seem synonymous, but they are not. as hernando desoto pointed out in many places of the world is a semblance of a free economy at work, but there's no system of title deeds to land or their property. this has two significant effects. first it means property ownership is never secure. you can never be sure government will come around and grab what should have. second it means individuals with deeds and titles can use their land as collateral for business loans. this in turn elicit growth. in 1898, the united states had all four of these pillars. rittenhouse three, was focuses in common law. france germany and most european states had three, the son saw the religious character already beginning to fade. around the world in africa, asia, latin america committee states at common law and property rights retitle and deeds. america first came to prominence after the spanish-american war ended in 1898. for the first time it's argued largely by leftist historians, and the u.s. acquired an empire with cuba and the philippines. if this were only revealed the deep differences
>> policymakers to talk about the global economy for the next 30 minutes. we have a wide terrain to spend. to the left is robert zellich, former president of the world bank. austin, former chairman of the economic advisers under prawsm, and michael who spoke last night briefly, and he's the chief economic adviser for george hw or bush and now a stanford economic professor. i want to start out with the united states. for people in the room understand the president as well as us and golsby. people ask what is going to come of this fiscal cliff. i'd like to look through the fiscal cliff asking you to describe to us how do you see the budget negotiations playing out over the next six months? >> well, feels to me like they almost had a deal last year. the principle bottleneck last year was not that the president was unwilling to offer cuts. it was that there was a group of republicans in the house who wouldn't go for the revenue, and i think that's still the bottleneck now. you probably saw the article this morning from hubbard, what boehner said, and i take from this collection some
as a share of our economy just as our agriculture has declined as a share of our economy we are still will world's largest exporter i believe, but to get a number of jobs to stop declining and to start going up in a more sustainable way. >> i agree. >> i'm going to make a positive energy point and then ask questions. the point is when it comes to the actual destruction those are high paying jobs because we can't outsource them and so i think that is one area you are seeing the wages actually going up. having said that, do you worry that this is going to become a really divisive issue in your party because there is a leaning in the democratic party that is pretty and i fossil fuel and is not greeting the discovery of these new sources of fossil fuels, natural gas not so bad but some of the techniques for extracting it like fracking are not in environmentalists favorite thing so will you we start seeing some de tension and the people welcoming this as a source of jobs and economic growth and the environmental wing of the party that says no we want to get away from fossil fuel. >> i don'
were people who were still dissatisfied with the economy, with obama's performance, but they were not sold on romney saying that was the undecided voter. well, a week later, those people were saying they were for romney, and undecided were people who used to be for obama, but they didn't like his performance in the debate so they were undecided. it's a myth of saying who was undecided. i think we're going to analyze it, analyze it as persuadable voters. that's who it is, is not in the core of either party to be persuaded. the way we, as reporters, analyze undecided voters is ridiculous. number four, independents are no longer the swing group. i mean, look, romney won independents. in ski battleground states, carried the independent vote and lost. indidn'ts, the way they -- independents, the way they define themselves now in the era of strong partisanship lean slightly republican. if they split even or if democrats win it, it's a very good year for democrats. it's the mirror image of moderates. mote rads lean democratic, but they are a key swing vote. to me, look at those who call
care of the middle class and have the richest of the rich contributed little bit to helping our economy and the majority of the people who are fortunate and made a lot of money are willing to do this. democrats, independents and republicans support the direction of the president regarding this fiscal cliff issue. thanks, everybody. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> well, good afternoon, everyone. welcome back. the american people have spoken. a week ago they decided in many ways to continue the status quo with divided government. we have a lot of his challenges confronting us here at the end of the cycle, but i would remind everyone that divided government sometimes has some very important things for the country. and of ronald reagan and tip o'neill reforming social security. ronald reagan and tip oatmeal during the last comprehensive tax reform. bill clinton and republican congress with welfare reform and balanced in the budget. so we look forward to making this divided government productive for the american people and the several wellness we have a lot of challeng
in the economy. not the state of the economy. not the number of unemployment at how we've been improving over the are, and incumbents usually accounts or something. if you look at this election you can say a little bit of growth matters. a president who was sort of in the middle, 48, 49% job approval rating for much of this year, and about 1.5% growth, we add that with an income, you probably get a winner of 3% and that's what many of the models looked like. a lot of people thought boy, the economy is so bad, a modest change in the economy was what many political scientists predicted would be helpful to the president, not hurting them. three, what's one thing was really wrong about our analysis of the election? here i'm going to take our focus on ohio. i think we people watched the election night and said well, when ohio was called that's when we knew president obama was president. but there was an interesting light on ohio that went on for quite a while, and that was the polls looked much better for mitt romney at the national level before the hurricane really good mitt romney had some narro
it comes to the economy, they think that's the way is to give their friends more money and hope they do well by you. you don't believe that they are not running for you. latinos come about with the immigration issue was about. you want to be part of the american dream they won't even pass the dream act. they are not running for you. does anyone have a question as to why those series of arguments and that series of consistency that ties and interweaves into a mirage that makes sense? why 21% of americans who think that caring about people like them as the most important feature in the national leader why they would select the person that was making that argument against the person ever to be running to them. as much as a character of romney and as much as that is a caricature of republicans, a character only works if they make sense in light of the person being caricatured. yes said, propagandize itself has to have a kernel of truth at its core so what republicans need to do is to get your hard look at ourselves. republicans need to ask if that is how a fifth of americans overwhelmingly
the objective reality, you know, what are the problems with the pack -- pakistani economy, what are the faults of the economy, which is a democracy, even if it's distorted, what are the problems with the neighbors. the main problem i see in the relationship is that we have rather pernicious stereotypes about one another. there's an american narrative and pakistani narrative in the way of our understanding. the american narrative understanding is these are a bunch of thieves and double crossers who take our money and don't do what we want them to do. this is a widespread prejudice against pakistan, and there's enough truth to it in the sense you can always find evidence of this, that it guides a kind of negative downward spiral and makes it hard to develop trust. pakistanis have a narrative that they use us and discard us. use us against the russians in the 1980s, toss us because because of nuclear proliferation in 1990. they use us in the war after 9/11, but after 20 # 14, they are going to go away. you can count on it. pakistanis think americans are hard wired to desert them. this set of ster
the program on china and latin america. china is also going through añ&r transition, and also china's economy's extremely important for many latin american countries increasingly so, and she's going to share thoughts about what that relationship might look like. we're delighted to have margaret with us as realm. she just came back from about a month in china m i think we'll have some fresh perspective and insight about the situation there, and, obviously, people are increasingly interested in latin america, what's happening in china, and the united states, the two very important players. let begin with a few comments before turning it8/á#i to any colleagues and them opening it up to all of you. last april, the dialogue produced a policy report that reflected the analysis and recommendations of the members of the inter-american dialogue, and we talk about area opportunities in the areas of trade and energy and other global affairs that really should be taken advantage of by the united states moving forward, but we emphasized as well there were three issues that were on an old agenda that had
. it is what it is. if we do not avert it, it will cause a short-term bump to the economy and the question is not whether or not we do it, but how long it lasts. at the sequestration is more damaging than the tax increase, that can be undone. sequestration is a terrible idea and can be very disruptive. if we go into sequestration, that's awful. if the taxes read up on everybody for a month or two, it would be a temporary bump comes falling down the expansion, which is coming, but you can undo it. >> i want to talk about dodd-frank and wall street with washington in particular the white house. when you look at the response in the way wall street has approached dodd-frank with the lobbying efforts against it and really the aggressive nature wall street took more broadly terse president obama, how do you explain it when it did about it, when you talk to people? >> we seriously hurt their feelings. last night and serious about it. when you look at the damage done, people ranting about marginal tax increases, which they would not even know happened unless they were particularly attentive to wha
facing lbgt people. and i said, i don't know, the economy or jobs -- jobs and health care. and they were like, you know, what are the lbgt issues? you know, these are the issues. we actually cut across every demographic status and that means that in many ways, every issue that is facing other people in society are the very issues that we are facing, too. the ones that have been the big issues, maybe a little bit more unique to some of the specific issues. but they are not the only ones. if we can make ourselves visible, obviously it is not inclusive of the entire community. he beat out a whole swath of this. how many people are married? even in the broader general society versus people who aren't married. that is even a smaller number for same-sex couples. we have a lot of work to do and a lot of discrimination of people continue to face. >> i wanted to talk about thinking about the future of marriage equality. however it goes forward through the states. there is very much a way that that could be mobilized for an aggressive agenda. i wondered if he wanted to make any connections between
and reform difficult. and the economy is going to be critical. i can't emphasize the point enough because one day we point out in the report is the undue influence the ministry of interior has accumulated during mubarak's last decade is in large part a to the need for a strong apparatus that could contain socioeconomic grievances and protest movements that were mobilizing around the grievances by decades of pursuing unsound and nontransparent economic civilization. so if the sponsored government shoes the same line of policies and wants to, if you look on the but mubarak has started in egypt, i think i will only deepen his dependency of the egyptian states on a strong apparatus that could contain unfulfilled demands for social and economic crisis. i think we need to think about it critically and lighted the negotiations between the national monetary fund and egyptian government. >> i'm going to stop you. i hope i didn't go over. >> is fabulous and laying out a detailed summary of the state of play at these issues and doing it in a way that it can highlight a one of the core issues on the pric
to be changed in economy, it's going to be because of the healthy relation with india. if they are going to deal with a society that is very fractured along religious and ethnic lines gets going to be because groups and civil society's ethnic groups businesses other people reach out side of pakistan's borders. my short answer is i think their stock and i think the way to unstick them everyone realizes is not going to be, it's not reasonable to expect the current political structure has a vision to reform. >> we will move through some questions, shifting gears a little bit. peter i would like to bring us back to something that ambassador munter was saying about the centrality of the past couple of years old counterterrorism in the u.s. strategy and we are all familiar with some of them much heralded achievements that the united states has made on the counterterror front. i would be curious to get to questions and for you. one would be, are things, heavily compresses much in counterterrorism and particular in pakistan and afghanistan as it appears and is widely reported and claimed by the obama ad
in this economy is at high risk of homelessness so our prevention effort here is to make sure youngsters get into school, stay in school and graduate and have an opportunity to go on and work. a housing mortgage program last year about 90,000 veteran mortgage owners who had defaulted on their home loans were able to defer roughly 75% of them to be effected from their homes and that is with the va financial counsel helping them get control of their finances and monthly payments, extending the payment period but the return to us is we are able to ensure stability and that we will deal with these veterans as homeless veterans otherwise, and the records indicate it's about three and a half times that for veterans that are not homeless, so there is an important aspect of this and why all i say that we were able to save 75% there's still 25% we did not save coming and we have got to just do better at it. >> thank you mr. secretary. >> mr. johnson? >> thank you, mr. chairman. and both of you, general shinseki and secretary panetta, i've come to respect greatly both of your commitments and your hear
, orientation generally, how it affects the economy, but also in the middle east, something that has to be thought about, and there's also the question of the european union which will impact again, not just the economy, but could have impact in terms of what happens in the middle east. we'll reserve questions for the q&a, but i want to focus on a few of the key issues that are most immediate and prominent. in iran, 2013 will be a decisive year. for many people who have memories say, well, gee, there's a lot of people talking about iran for a long time, and every year's supposed to be the decisive year. why this year? for two reasons. one, i think, actually, the impact of sanctions is profound. for the first time, it is truly profound in the case of iran. the supreme leader, two weeks ago, referred to the sanctions of being brutal. his words, the sanctions are brutal. this is someone who has said on an ongoing basis, look, we lived with sanctions since the beginning of the islamic republic. they make us stronger, receive sufficient. there's a long litany describing how the sanctions
periods of uninsured each year to say when it comes to the economy, they think that the ways to give difference more money and hope that they do well by you. if you believe that, they are not running for you. latinas, that's what the immigration was about. you want to be a part of the american dream? they won't even pass the dream act. they are not running for you. anyone have any question is too wide, with this series of arguments and that the series of consistency that tyson interweaves into a my launch that makes sense. why? will% of americans who think that caring about people like him is the most important feature in a national leader. why they would select the person who is making that argument against a person who said that the running for them. now, republicans have to admit that as much of that is a caricature of romney and as much of that is a character of republicans, caricatures only work if they make sense in light of the person being caricature. as even joseph goebbels said, propaganda itself has to have a colonel of truth at its core. so what republicans need to do is
in this country, um, so that we can get things done and create jobs and get this economy moving again. >> one issue, um, beyond the fiscal cliff that telephone companies are facing now is cybersecurity, how to secure, um, our networks. excuse me, your networks. can and u.s. telecom has advocated the position that congress should enable better sharing of information between companies, telephone companies themselves and the government. why, why would this approach, um, be better than regulation? >> guest: well, i think with regulation comes, um, a concern that we'll be overregulated, and we won't be able to run our businesses the way we need to. and i think the last thing we need is another, um, regulatory entity that's designed to oversee an industry. we can handle this ourselves. i think that, um, we're the experts. we know what needs to be done. today there's unprecedented cooperation between companies. and we want to work closely with the government. they're getting more of these cyber threats than, um, or as many as business today. so the cooperative way without creating additional regulat
about the economy and reducing the deficit. live coverage for you on our cam pan yonnet work c-span at 1:05 eastern today. >> if there is a mandate in yesterday's results there is mandate for to us find a way to work together on the solutions on the challenges we all face as a nation. my message is not juan of confrontation but one of conviction. in the weeks and months ahead we face a serious of tremendous challenges and great opportunity. >> the american people want us to work together. republicans want us to work together. democrats want us to work together. they want a balanced approach to everything but especially this situation that we have dealing with the huge deficit and taxes that are part of that. >> the newly-elected congress starts work in january but the current congress still has work to do through the end of the year what is typically referred to as a lame-duck session. work is expected on the impending fiscal cliff including expiration of bush-era tax cuts, federal deficit, raising the debt ceiling and by how much and planned cuts to domestic and military spending known
failed firms managed to keep for themselves mean that once the economy returns to a semblance of health come incentives, incentives to take uneconomic risks may be even greater than before. opening constructive dialogue on these issues will not be easy, given the current atmosphere in washington but would seem well worth the effort. thank you. [applause] >> the thanks, tom. alex would like to offer a few comments. >> the thanks very much to mark and cato for giving me the opportunity to comment on tom's very interesting and very useful book. i say that as a practicing banking executive. overbearing ceo. i was a ceo for about 14 years and i wonder if i was overbearing? surely not. tom, in his book, sites frank knight risk -- and i consider tom seem to be how to address the reality stated thus by knight, uncertainty is one of the fundamental facts of life. it is ineradicable from business decisions. one interpreter expanded on this a little bit. he said, as knight says most business decisions especially strategic ones are there varying degrees steps into the unknown. each of the possibl
of 2008 which made commodity prices higher and depressed economies even more. even such things as the wikileaks, and the the lifestyle while the rest of the population is suffering, and the syrian regime didn't understand the new circumstances and reacted in the way that the outside, both father and son, react when there's a mess. they clamp down on it. a convulsive push button response that isn't given a heck of a lot of response in terms of what to do. everyone was saying, let's implement large-scale significant political reforms along a pluralist model, that was not given too much consideration in the beginning. >> so you had very high hopes for the young leader, and actually he and his wife formed this alliance and the profile they showed to the west was modernist, pro west, ready for change. you had a lot of hope and that changed. where did that hope come from and how did it change? >> i wrote a book in 2005, published by the same praise, called the new lion of dam do -- damascus, and i thought this might be a new leader that would change the system. he was different. didn't have the
economy into the third world. what actually happened when we get the workforce that work force was the biggest productivity boom in american economic history. i know the liabilities of claiming credit for inventing the internet but we pretty much did. the standardized tests that were the basis of the nation at risk report were wrong about my generation. it turns out we had learned some things in school that didn't show up in the tests and the best theory i heard of why that doesn't get measured is we have this rich extracurricular environment in our schools, not just debate and student journalism but basketball and football where kids learn competition, team work, problem solving, and in civics education there is no better way to learn government and threw things like junior statesmen and united nation. other than actually going to city hall in changing the law yourself. and extracurriculars that reagan were a magnet to address the problem of truancy and dropping out. so we quickly cover, is that a measurable thing we should be investing in through policy? any specific ideas? i
sense as a part of society along with the rule of law and stable economy and thriving business, eight parts society. >> i have an answer that is quite controversial that doesn't have to do with the military perce but has to do with the policy on how much u.s. controlled the development of medical devices and drugs and it has become so problematic that big pharma and medical technology developers are now going to other countries to do clinical trials and the work that is necessary to prove there are drugs and devices that work successfully in humans. this is a very backward way of promoting national security in the context of preventing people from disease and injury through advanced technology but it is important that our industry in the health sector is turning to other countries, that we maintain strong relations with those countries and make sure there is a handshake between our medical professionals and their medical professionals, the we are not just experimenting on their population. that is important unintended consequence of the current policy. >> if i could pile on the your q
and a pension plan and all of that is vanished. though we have thruster working class into the sector economy, low-wage economy, households. not only do people tend to work in the working class more than one job, but almost everybody in the house is working in order to keep afloat. that has been a devastating change. i think the rise of the christian right, as i argue an american fascist scum is directly linked to this despair because these economic dislocations spring with the distractions of communities, destruction of families, substance abuse, domestic abuse, other problems when families break down. people retreat from the reality-based world, which almost destroys them, almost has to strengthen into a non-reality based belief system and all totalitarian system or non-reality-based. a world of magic, historical inevitability, it would report god intervenes their behalf and the only way to bring these people back into a reality-based world is to bring franchise than within the economy. i think this is something we saw, that it was despair and all the great writers on totalitarianism, karl
argument for gay marriage. at 11:00 p.m. eastern, how green jobs policies are damaging america's economy. tamara 2:00 p.m. watch the 2012 american book awards. this is the 30 third annual awards show presented by the before columbus foundation and it was held at the university of california berkeley. tomorrow the miami book fair international kicks off in florida and we will take you live there at 6:00 p.m. eastern to hear tom wolfe, author of back to blood. booktv will be live next weekend for more of the festival. those are just a few of the programs we will bring you this weekend. visit for complete schedule. >> here's a look at some books being published this week. bill haas surprise when another request president jefferson's political process and thomas jefferson, the art of power. in the patriarch, the remarkable like and turbulent times of joseph kennedy, david nasa chronicles the life and career of the political dynasty. judge andrew napolitano, senior political analyst for fox news argues presidents theodore roosevelt and woodrow wilson disregarded the constitution to
--actively to promote commerce? or should it just leave the economy free to develop on its own?' these arguments, which were huge battles back then, from the point of view of today, look like minor squabbles because all of the founders, from the most radical like thomas paine to the most conservative like alexander hamilton agreed on the basic principles of government. no one--everyone agreed that government ought to be limited; that there ought to be a private sphere in which government stays out. there ought to be protection of property rights. this is something which today is questioned by the prevailing opinion of our time. c-span: what would you advise--how old's your oldest child? >> guest: susannah. c-span: how old is she? >> guest: nineteen. c-span: so she's in college? >> guest: yes. c-span: what did you advise her or would you advise her on-i--let's say that you're heading off to college and you're concerned about what your kid's going to be taught. how do you tell them to watch for bias among academics either way? >> guest: well, it so happens that this is a frequent topic around our dinner
things. it went from one of the most impoverished countries to attend was economy in 60 years. it's incredible. like it would just as a compass, korean-americans have accomplished. north. is part of career that never got the freedom. it's all this. they're still stuck in that place. i think that we have a special responsibility to try to fix it. when he first came after a few months of being in china and the taken to address restore committees the things you don't think about. and i don't know if he remembers this, his jaw dropped only get to the aisle. rows and rows of yogurt in cereal and 50 packs of each one. it is amazing how much we have here. he had his first strawberry. to explain what a strawberry is and what she needed was an amazing experience. we take into the soup. they had a diorama of dinosaurs. i have some less difficulty explain to him what a dinosaur was when there is no context for a dinosaur. visa things that i just, you know, illustrations and and it does, but you take that level of education in isolation , you can imagine a nation that is crippled, not to ment
to be successful. so it delayed the response which was put in place in order to minimize the damage to the economy and the citizens of the gulf of mexico. and we're still paying that price. it's unusual -- it's unusual for a case to be made against somebody for lying to congress. when something is serious as this as occurred and the damage 0 great to the people of the gulf of mexico it was imperative that criminal and civil action be taken against bp. >> reporter: nawblght. >> it is the largest fine in history. it still isn't the completion of the case because the civil fine could go as high as $21 billion. i'm very satisfied with the action and i'm also very happy that they are going to take this civil action all the way to court. so i would hoped at the end the number would be so large in combination that it would serve as a significant deterrent to any other oil company ever again engaging in the level of reckless behavior. >> reporter: [inaudible] [inaudible] >> good judgment holding them accountable. i'm sure he will use good judgment if he decides the settlement is appropriate. and i have no
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 54 (some duplicates have been removed)